건물명도(인도)
1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the 127.3 square meters of the branch floor among the buildings listed in the attached Table list.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. On November 27, 2016, Nonparty D, the owner of the building listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant building”) set the period of KRW 127.3 square meters on the ground floor of the instant building (hereinafter “sub-story of the instant building”) from November 27, 2016 to November 26, 2017, Nonparty D, the owner of the building listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant building”) as KRW 3,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 500,000.
B. At present, the ground floor of the instant building is under the Defendant’s possession and use.
C. On July 11, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased a building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) from Nonparty D and purchased the same year.
8. 17. The ownership was acquired by completing the registration of ownership transfer.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The defendant, who is the possessor of the ground floor of the instant building, is obligated to deliver the ground floor to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the said building, unless there is a special reason to the contrary.
3. The defendant's assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant entered into a lease agreement on the part on the branch floor of the instant building with the Plaintiff.
The Defendant paid all the agreed rent and deposit for lease to the Plaintiff.
The defendant has a duty to deliver the branch floor of the building of this case at the same time with the refund of the lease deposit remaining after the deduction of the unpaid rent, etc. from the plaintiff.
B. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant was a party to a lease agreement with the Plaintiff or the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above assertion.
Therefore, the defendant's remaining arguments made on the premise that the defendant is the party who entered into a lease agreement with the plaintiff are no longer judged.
The defendant's assertion is not accepted.
3. The plaintiff's request for the conclusion is reasonable.